A Systematic Review on the Impact of Quality Assurance Programs on Outcomes after Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The implementation of quality assurance programs (QAPs) within urological practice has gained prominence; yet, their impact on outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) remains uncertain. This paper aims to systematically review the current literature regarding the implementation of QAPs and their impact on outcomes after robot-assisted RP, laparoscopic RP, and open prostatectomy, collectively referred to as RP.

METHODS

A systematic Embase, Medline (OvidSP), and Scopus search was conducted, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) process, on January 12, 2024. Studies were identified and included if these covered implementation of QAPs and their impact on outcomes after RP. QAPs were defined as any intervention seeking quality improvement through critically reviewing, analyzing, and discussing outcomes. Included studies were assessed critically using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, with results summarized narratively.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Ten included studies revealed two methodological strategies: periodic performance feedback and surgical video assessments. Despite conceptual variability, QAPs improved outcomes consistently (ie, surgical margins, urine continence, erectile function, and hospital readmissions). Of the two strategies, video assessments better identified suboptimal surgical practice and technical errors. Although the extent of quality improvements did not appear to correlate with the frequency of QAPs, there was an apparent correlation with whether or not outcomes were evaluated collectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Current findings suggest that QAPs have a positive impact on outcomes after RP. Caution in interpretation due to limited data is advised. More extensive research is required to explore how conceptual differences impact the extent of quality improvements.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this paper, we review the available scientific literature regarding the implementation of quality assurance programs and their impact on outcomes after radical prostatectomy. The included studies offered substantial support for the implementation of quality assurance programs as an incentive to improve the quality of care continuously.

RAS testing in metastatic colorectal cancer: advances in Europe

Personalized medicine shows promise for maximizing efficacy and minimizing toxicity of anti-cancer treatment. KRAS exon 2 mutations are predictive of resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor-directed monoclonal antibodies in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Recent studies have shown that broader RAS testing (KRAS and NRAS) is needed to select patients for treatment. While Sanger sequencing is still used, approaches based on various methodologies are available. Few CE-approved kits, however, detect the full spectrum of RAS mutations. More recently, "next-generation" sequencing has been developed for research use, including parallel semiconductor sequencing and reversible termination. These techniques have high technical sensitivities for detecting mutations, although the ideal threshold is currently unknown. Finally, liquid biopsy has the potential to become an additional tool to assess tumor-derived DNA. For accurate and timely RAS testing, appropriate sampling and prompt delivery of material is critical. Processes to ensure efficient turnaround from sample request to RAS evaluation must be implemented so that patients receive the most appropriate treatment. Given the variety of methodologies, external quality assurance programs are important to ensure a high standard of RAS testing. Here, we review technical and practical aspects of RAS testing for pathologists working with metastatic colorectal cancer tumor samples. The extension of markers from KRAS to RAS testing is the new paradigm for biomarker testing in colorectal cancer.